Good King Bhumibol

On my first cinema visit in Bangkok, I dropped my popcorn. The lights had dimmed and I had settled back when the whole audience stood up quickly and obediently. The King’s anthem had started. Flustered, not knowing that the anthem is played at every performance of every film in the realm, I joined them, and in the process tipped my snack all over my neighbour’s knees.

It was my first week in what ended up being a six-year residency in the Thai capital, and the first of many similar mishaps. A few days later, in the city’s only central park, the national anthem (a different tune from ‘the King’s anthem’) blared out without warning from tinny speakers attached to lampposts. Walkers, joggers and courting couples all halted their activities for the daily 6 p.m. tribute to majesty.

Our own royals can only dream of such reflex loyalty. And in modern Britain of course, even standing up for the national anthem would be met with utter derision by teenagers and their parents. But Thai subjects seem to enjoy any opportunity to demonstrate their allegiance to King Bhumibol. If there are any republicans, they do a good job of disguising themselves. Which is why the fact that the King seems to support the coup in Thailand is crucial to its success — King Bhumibol’s wish is his people’s command.

King Bhumibol came to the throne in 1946, after the unexplained shooting of his brother, King Ananda Mahidol. He was only 18. After growing up mostly in Switzerland he had no preparation. He promised to ‘reign with righteousness for the benefit and happiness of the Siamese people’ and has fulfilled his pledge. His royal projects in the north have provided substitute crops for farmers previously growing opium poppies. With his encouragement the unsustainable logging of hardwood trees was brought to an end. His speeches have emphasised learning, harmony and tolerance. His people’s response, especially in rural areas, would make our own royals blush. Thai villagers not only literally prostrate themselves in his presence but lay down handkerchiefs for him to walk on and then preserve the cloth with his footprint at home. He is pictured in a variety of guises in homes and businesses up and down the country. ~Alex Spillius, The Spectator

It is also worth recalling that it was King Bhumibol who made it possible for a peaceful transition back to democracy after the last coup in 1992, and who seems to be the only person capable, as Franz-Josef II once said about his own role in the Habsburg Empire, of protecting his people from its government. When monarchists tell you that monarchy is generally more just and well-ordered a type of regime than others, it is this sort of monarch that they have in mind. Monarchy is not suited to all places and all peoples, just as democracy is not, but King Bhumibol gives us a glimpse of what a good monarchy might look like.

Monarchy is not suited to all places and all peoples? Do explain, as I can’t think of any exceptions. If you’re thinking of America, the only reason it isn’t suitable is the absurd anti-monarchist sentiment and history of the country- which is, of course, inseparable from the corrosive liberalism that besets the nation.

Deprecated: Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/larison/public_html/wp-content/themes/tarski/comments.php on line 66

Deprecated: Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/larison/public_html/wp-content/themes/tarski/comments.php on line 66

There is also the difficulty — which defeated schemes of restoration in France after 1871 — of choosing the dynasty. None of Bushes, Clintons or Kennedys are very appealing — although they would all doubtless be better as the source of constitutional monarchs than as Madisonian executives.

A legitimate monarch would most likely come from the world of professional sports, although Blue America might insist on some Hollywood lineage.

Deprecated: Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/larison/public_html/wp-content/themes/tarski/comments.php on line 66

Deprecated: Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/larison/public_html/wp-content/themes/tarski/comments.php on line 66

Why not go with the Jacobite line of monarchs? Historical credibility, and they aren’t implicated in any of the complaints about the monarchy’s actions leading up to the revolution. All hail King Francis!

Deprecated: Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/larison/public_html/wp-content/themes/tarski/comments.php on line 66

Deprecated: Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/larison/public_html/wp-content/themes/tarski/comments.php on line 66

“I am often asked if I am a republican or a monarchist. I am neither, I am a legitimist: I am for legitimate government. You could never have a monarchy in Switzerland, and it would be asinine to imagine Spain as a republic.”

Otto von Habsburg and Mr. Snyder have hit it on the head. One of the main reasons why I object so strenuously to the “freedom agenda” and the plans for democratising many of these countries is that their societies are constitutionally unaccustomed and, in some cases, unsuited to that type of regime. History, culture, the habits of a people are all essential in determining which type of regime would be most suitable for each nation, which is why I am convinced that it should left, as much as is possible, to each nation or people to find its own way and develop those forms of government to which it is best fitted. Certainly, as universally-applicable regime types go monarchy has more credibility, since it has prevailed in most corners of the world at most times in the past. However, it has not always prevailed in a just and well-ordered manner, and may not match the temperaments and mentalities of every people.

The world is varied and full of diverse peoples–this happens to be true, even if multicultis repeat it without understanding what this means–which means that diversity of political regimes should be the norm. The increasing homogenisation of regime type is as much a form of stifling and deadening uniformity as anything else wrought by globalisation or mass culture, and should be opposed by conservatives for its artificiality if for no other reason.

Personally, I inclince towards monarchy of some type (and I could think of no dynasty better than the Jacobites, if one were to carry this out), but I am aware that it is by now entirely foreign to our people’s experience. Bringing a king to America would be as counterproductive and destructive as it was when the Jacobins introduced a republic to France–it must inevitably be coercive, artificial and false to the customs and traditions of a people. For those who have asked what it is that I might prefer, I think Old Republican restoration would be the ideal answer to modern American democracy. However, I am not unduly hopeful that the Old Republic is likely to return in most respects. It remains the standard and I think it should remain the ideal of conservatives and reactionaries alike.

Recent Articles

I’m back from Washington, and I have an announcement for readers of the blog: Eunomia will be shifting over to The American Conservative’s site here. This will be the last post at this site (the redirect will be set up soon), and all future Eunomia blogging will be at TAC.

Romney lost statewide, as we already knew, but more remarkable is the number of districts he has lost. He lost many of them by thin margins, but that is not much consolation. It appears that he has lost almost all, except the 21st, 49th and 52nd (which he has won) and possibly the 42nd, which is very […]

By Republican strategist Alex Vogel’s calculation, Mitt Romney is giving Gramm a run for his money. The former Massachusetts governor has spent $1.16 million per delegate, a rate that would cost him $1.33 billion to win the nomination.
By contrast, Mike Huckabee’s campaign has been the height of efficiency. Delegates haven’t yet been officially apportioned, but […]

It seems to me that this is hard to discern from exit polls. First, the exit polls aren’t measuring why people voted one way or another, but which candidate they supported and which demographic groups they belong to, so the only thing we can know with any certainty is the level of support, or lack of […]

As of 11:00 Central today, Romney has won just three primaries all year and all of them are effectively his “home turf.” All of his other wins have been caucuses, many of them not strongly contested by his rivals.
P.S. It’s hard to gauge the outcome from county results, but so far every county that has reported shows a […]